IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v22y2011i5p1277-1285.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effective Matrices, Decision Frames, and Cooperation in Volunteer Dilemmas: A Theoretical Perspective on Academic Peer Review

Author

Listed:
  • Gregory B. Northcraft

    (University of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois 61820)

  • Ann E. Tenbrunsel

    (Notre Dame University, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556)

Abstract

Academic journal reviewing is a form of collective action that creates a public good, and as such, it represents a social dilemma with cooperation being essential to the reviewing process. Cooperation in this social dilemma is a function of the perceived costs and benefits to the potential reviewer. However, those perceived costs and benefits are personally perceived and in turn may be influenced by the frame reviewers bring to the decision to review. Frames may differ in the extent to which they lead reviewing to be viewed as an in-role duty or an extra-role choice, and the extent to which they lead reviewers to focus only on consequences to the self or consequences to others as well. Also critical in this dilemma are the frames of editors who must invite participation by reviewers and the frames of universities who legitimate reviewer behaviors. Some “obvious” solutions to the volunteer dilemma of reviewing may have paradoxical effects on reviewer cooperation if such frames are not considered. The importance of frame analysis for understanding volunteer dilemmas is addressed.

Suggested Citation

  • Gregory B. Northcraft & Ann E. Tenbrunsel, 2011. "Effective Matrices, Decision Frames, and Cooperation in Volunteer Dilemmas: A Theoretical Perspective on Academic Peer Review," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1277-1285, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:22:y:2011:i:5:p:1277-1285
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0607
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0607
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.1100.0607?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wade-Benzoni, Kimberly A. & Tenbrunsel, Ann E. & Bazerman, Max H., 1996. "Egocentric Interpretations of Fairness in Asymmetric, Environmental Social Dilemmas: Explaining Harvesting Behavior and the Role of Communication," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 111-126, August.
    2. McCarter, Matthew W. & Rockmann, Kevin W. & Northcraft, Gregory B., 2010. "Is it even worth it? The effect of loss prospects in the outcome distribution of a public goods dilemma," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 1-12, January.
    3. Pillutla, Madan M. & Murnighan, J. Keith, 1996. "Unfairness, Anger, and Spite: Emotional Rejections of Ultimatum Offers," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 208-224, December.
    4. Messick, David M., 1999. "Alternative logics for decision making in social settings," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 11-28, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Matthew W. McCarter & Shirli Kopelman & Thomas A. Turk & Candace E. Ybarra, 2012. "Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth: How the tragedy of the anticommons emerges in organizations," Working Papers 12-14, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    2. Weiss, Matthias & Nair, Lakshmi B. & Hoorani, Bareerah H. & Gibbert, Michael & Hoegl, Martin, 2023. "Transparency of reporting practices in quantitative field studies: The transparency sweet spot for article citations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2).
    3. Zaharie, Monica Aniela & Osoian, Codruţa Luminiţa, 2016. "Peer review motivation frames: A qualitative approach," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 69-79.
    4. Federico Bianchi & Francisco Grimaldo & Giangiacomo Bravo & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2018. "The peer review game: an agent-based model of scientists facing resource constraints and institutional pressures," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1401-1420, September.
    5. Sergio Copiello, 2018. "On the money value of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 613-620, April.
    6. Anita Williams Woolley & Erica Fuchs, 2011. "PERSPECTIVE---Collective Intelligence in the Organization of Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1359-1367, October.
    7. Monica Aniela Zaharie & Marco Seeber, 2018. "Are non-monetary rewards effective in attracting peer reviewers? A natural experiment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1587-1609, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. McCarter, Matthew W. & Budescu, David V. & Scheffran, Jürgen, 2011. "The give-or-take-some dilemma: An empirical investigation of a hybrid social dilemma," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 83-95, September.
    2. Matthew W. McCarter & Shirli Kopelman & Thomas A. Turk & Candace E. Ybarra, 2012. "Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth: How the tragedy of the anticommons emerges in organizations," Working Papers 12-14, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    3. Matthew W. McCarter & Anya C. Samak & Roman M. Sheremeta, 2014. "Divided Loyalists or Conditional Cooperators? Creating Consensus about Cooperation in Multiple Simultaneous Social Dilemmas," Working Papers 14-16, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    4. Zaharie, Monica Aniela & Osoian, Codruţa Luminiţa, 2016. "Peer review motivation frames: A qualitative approach," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 69-79.
    5. McCarter, Matthew W. & Wade-Benzoni, Kimberly A. & Kamal, Darcy K. Fudge & Bang, H. Min & Hyde, Steven J. & Maredia, Reshma, 2020. "Models of intragroup conflict in management: A literature review," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 925-946.
    6. Corey Angst, 2009. "Protect My Privacy or Support the Common-Good? Ethical Questions About Electronic Health Information Exchanges," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 90(2), pages 169-178, November.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:3:p:381-385 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Masters-Waage, Theodore C. & Nai, Jared & Reb, Jochen & Sim, Samantha & Narayanan, Jayanth & Tan, Noriko, 2021. "Going far together by being here now: Mindfulness increases cooperation in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 189-205.
    9. Joseph McManus, 2021. "Emotions and Ethical Decision Making at Work: Organizational Norms, Emotional Dogs, and the Rational Tales They Tell Themselves and Others," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 153-168, February.
    10. Polzer, Jeffrey T. & Stewart, Katherine J. & Simmons, Jessica L., 1999. "A Social Categorization Explanation for Framing Effects in Nested Social Dilemmas, , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 154-178, August.
    11. Wang, Cynthia S. & Sivanathan, Niro & Narayanan, Jayanth & Ganegoda, Deshani B. & Bauer, Monika & Bodenhausen, Galen V. & Murnighan, Keith, 2011. "Retribution and emotional regulation: The effects of time delay in angry economic interactions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 46-54, September.
    12. Emmanuel Petit, 2008. "Does indignation lead to generosity? An experimental investigation," Post-Print hal-00278586, HAL.
    13. Peter H. Kriss & George Loewenstein & Xianghong Wang & Roberto A. Weber, 2011. "Behind the veil of ignorance: Self-serving bias in climate change negotiations," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(7), pages 602-615, October.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:4:p:423-439 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Kristian Ove R. Myrseth & Gerhard Riener & Conny Wollbrant, 2013. "Tangible temptation in the social dilemma: Cash, cooperation, and self-control," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-13-04, ESMT European School of Management and Technology.
    16. Battigalli, Pierpaolo & Dufwenberg, Martin & Smith, Alec, 2019. "Frustration, aggression, and anger in leader-follower games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 15-39.
    17. Emmanuel PETIT, 2009. "Emotion and economic decision in the ultimatum game (In French)," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2009-03, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    18. Nicole Stofberg & Flore Bridoux & Francesca Ciulli & Niccolò Pisani & Ans Kolk & Marlene Vock, 2021. "A Relational‐Models View to Explain Peer‐to‐Peer Sharing," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(4), pages 1033-1069, June.
    19. Kopelman, Shirli & Rosette, Ashleigh Shelby & Thompson, Leigh, 2006. "The three faces of Eve: Strategic displays of positive, negative, and neutral emotions in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 81-101, January.
    20. Shirli Kopelman & Ashleigh Shelby Rosette, 2008. "Cultural variation in response to strategic emotions in negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 65-77, January.
    21. De Cremer, David & Dijk, Eric van, 2009. "Paying for sanctions in social dilemmas: The effects of endowment asymmetry and accountability," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 45-55, May.
    22. Alistair Munro & Danail Popov, 2013. "A portmanteau experiment on the relevance of individual decision anomalies for households," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 335-348, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:22:y:2011:i:5:p:1277-1285. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.